BoBo

I’m a bit skeptical of Ross Lyon. He has walked into two clubs with very good lists after a lot of the development work had already been done and taken them to arguably their potential (which didn’t win a flag). Then he left two clubs after they started a downward turn and there wasn’t much young talent ready to step up after him. He can absolutely get the best out of a good/great list, but there’s not much evidence that he can take a mediocre list and develop it into a premiership team for future years. A two club coach that hasn’t won a premiership even after being hand fed very strong lists. Hmmmm.

You’re speaking my language Binman. Aventine is a great album.

Brett Rattens win percentage as coach is 50.82. Paul Roos is 51.19. John Worsfolds is 51.08. Michael Voss’ is 41.80. 🧐

Whoah Lost the players that badly?

An Aldous Harding mention in an AFL thread. What a time to be alive.

We can absolutely do it next year. Hunter replacing hunt is a huge upgrade. Grundy replacing Jackson is (on current abilities) also a huge upgrade. I got sucked into the ‘what’s happened to Grundy?’ in the midst of his form decline after his big deal… but even after his decline, he’s still easily in the top 5 ruckman in the game. Schache is a like for like for Weed but is more versatile in my opinion. If anything he’s also an upgrade. I feel personnel wise, we have only strengthened the team. Make some tactical tweaks, get back to the selfless 2021 style (I felt like at times this year we had players go for glory instead of the best thing for the team) and bring back in T-Mac to bolster the forward line. I believe wholeheartedly that our best still beats everyone else’s. Just got to get the recipe right with what we have to make that happen. Good as gold.

Ok no worries, thanks for the comment Bitter. I do try to avoid generalisations and sincerely take on advice to avoid generalisations when I’m explicitly or implicitly making generalisations which I’ll own up too. Always open to that, I don’t know everything (or really anything truth be told). I’m asking Mullet to justify his overtly generalised comment in account of the specific claims (not general claims which you’ve stated for me to keep away from) made in the article that ‘those statements apply for any student’. Given that: Indigenous kids being ‘banned’ from speaking their home language seems pretty strange considering I’d hazard a guess that people from Italy, Spain, Indonesia, China, Nigeria, French Canada etc. etc. etc. probably aren’t being told the same thing. So that’s weird considering they live here and unless speaking a language apart from Australian English is outlawed, that’s a strange thing to ‘ban’. I also wonder how many non-indigenous, economically wealthy (considering it’s a boarding school) people were told their family of origin was a ‘dead loss’ and that the school family that mentored them was their family now. That’s literally cult behaviour which I’m sure you would agree. Don’t feel like I need to engage with the whole how to and how much you should wash. But all that is by the by really. What I really want to know is considering you are against generalisations (which I asserted none), why didn’t you aim the ‘don’t make generalisations’ point to the commenter who made blatant generalisations against specific claims made in the article that he didn’t read, but to my reply?? Why would you aim the ‘don’t generalise’ comment to the person that is asking another poster to not generalise? I’m sincerely not implying anything further than, if you don’t want people to generalise, then why are you aiming that at me in this situation? I’m trying to clarify Mullets overt generalisation?

Are these the larger cultural shifts you mean? Or applying to any student? From the article: ‘Examples include staff presuming that a student had special learning needs, despite evidence to the contrary. One young woman was top of her class but required to attend supplementary English as a Second Language lessons with the overseas students. Today she is a doctor. Young men reported being banned from speaking in their home languages at school or in the boarding house. Another was told that their family of origin was a “dead loss” and that the school family who mentored them should be their family now. Two young women explained how humiliated they felt when a poster was fixed to the bathroom wall telling them how, and how often, to wash themselves’

This seems prescient: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/12825394

Wait, so harmes and a second round pick for pick 60??

Yeah, they were all on the phone to lawyers as soon as they got wind that the abc were asking questions.

I love it! It’s like a time machine

There is still a significant portion of Australians that deny racism exists outside of explicitly calling people racial slurs. On top of that, there’s a smaller segment that want to propagate and perpetuate racism because… well… they’re just racist and they want to hold onto that apparently. People still defend Andrew Bolt for example even though he peddles anti-genocide rhetoric in the biggest newspaper in the country. Even if the allegations are proven to be 100 % correct on the weight of things, I have learned to never underestimate people’s ability to deny racist intent. People will then just say ‘ok yes those things happened, but it’s an isolated incident, this definitely isn’t an example of a larger trend and we definitely shouldn’t extrapolate this ‘isolated’ incident to larger societal/historical trends blah blah blah’

I don’t know if I hope the truth is anywhere on a scale leaning one way or the other to be honest. Remaining as disinterested as I can until the report and investigation findings are released to be objective with what’s in front of me.

Interesting statement. ’However, as the allegations against me have been spread widely and sometimes as indisputable matters of facts, I must state that my clear memory of the matters reported is very different’ So it’s not categorical denial that the matters occurred at all, it’s going to be about the character of what was said in so far as what was implied and what was inferred. If it straight up didn’t happen, he would come out and categorically deny the allegations.

Great call!

Fair points. Naughton coming to Melbourne for $750,000 would be an absurd STEAL though. He could easily demand $900,000+ To the highest bidder. Tomlinson is on $500,000 for us, bringing him into the dogs… whilst losing Naughton? For the same price? Tomlinson is also contracted with us until the end of 2024. Grundy is *apparently* going to have $300,000 of his remaining contract a year paid by the pies, which has 1-2 more years I think? Don’t see things squaring up financially real quick. If Naughton was so premiership hungry and ok with earning a lot less than he’s worth, then I guess I could see it happening. But his worth seems untenable for us if he wants money anywhere near his worth. I mean hey, if the doggies want to do it and Naughton is willing to break contract and be on the same money, then great! I just don’t see how it could happen without all the chips falling our way and the doggies being willing to lose their 2nd (arguably most important?) player.

Naughton is on $750,000 (apparently) at the dogs (would be worth more now considering this was a 2019 contract) and we are on the cusp of getting Grundy for about $600,000 or something? Ok.

Feeling real pessimistic today apparently.

Yup. Geelong broke them early and there was nothing Sydney could do about it. The pressure from Geelong in the first 3 qtrs was incredible to watch. Pretty bland GF for neutrals though I thought…

Just curious, the journalists that brought up the Jimmy Saville case also just ‘dug up some allegations’ and went ‘with it’. They had even less to go on considering Saville was dead, so in terms of ‘facts’, it’s easily arguable that Saville was the victim of a smear campaign, yes? Considering his side of the story never had the chance to be heard? Just want to hear your reasoning considering the ‘facts’ are in question (in which they definitely were in the Saville case too).

Ok no worries, what kind of media censorship sounds good to you then? Do you want journalists to self censor in favour of the accused and the powerful? Or Would you like there to be a governing body determining what can be published? Which absolute nightmare scenario sounds better to you than the current one?

Yup I agree. This is by far the most likely scenario.

If Chris Fagan wasn’t a highly media trained AFL coach that has access to every single news station/news paper/journalist in the country that has a dedicated team of communications staff at his club, I could entertain this as being a valid concern. But he is Chris Fagan and he does have endless access to journalists. He could pick up the phone at anytime, to any journalist and give as much detail as he wants if he chose. So if he did just miss the communications from the journalist, it’s not like he can’t make a call and be heard…. He was given 24 hours to respond and he didn’t. He could have asked for more time, but he didn’t. If *somehow* he didn’t check his email or phone messages or missed calls, as an AFL coach, then that’s on him, not the journalist. ‘To me it looks the equivalent of a journalist thrusting a microphone in someone's face demanding explanations on something they know little if anything about’ If Fagan is the person in this scenario, why are you saying that he either knows ‘little if anything’ about it?

The journalist rejects this in part and maintains he contacted Fagan directly. Can only assume he did the same with the rest of them.